Monthly Archives: June 2012

Yes, yes, I could add this to the previous post where I reminisced about the wonders of the first Sims series. However, after posting I became incredibly nostalgic and took my own advice my revisiting the game, as well as perusing several wonderful blogs and fan sites frequented by those that remember/love The Sims 1. Along the way I encountered several great sites that provide Sims 1 content/mods for it’s sequels as well as for the original itself, and decided to share what has been shared to me in brand new post (mostly because I can). Thanks to all the wonderful fans that brought these sites to my attention (they all come highly recommended).

And for the record, I own most of The Sims 2 expansions/stuff packs, and several of The Sims 3 expansions/stuff packs. I enjoy them immensely. They are good solid games. However, there were many things from the first series that I greatly missed, and am more than happy to “update” my current games with treasured nostalgia. The following sites are for content/mods to add and forums to discuss with other Sims 1 fans. Sim freaks, enjoy!

There isn’t anyone of my generation that doesn’t remember this groundbreaking computer game. Perhaps second only to Diablo or Myst in popularity and renown, The Sims (also known as TS1 or The Sims 1) was a spin-off of another well known series, Sim City, also developed by Will Wright. It was released by Maxis in 2000-2001 for both PC and Macintosh, and was instantly praised by both critics and the public. It has inspired several spin-offs and sequels, the latest being The Sims 3series and The Sims Medieval, as well several console versions such as The Urbz: Sims in the City. It is also notable for it’s sizable community driven content, such as fan-made downloads, patches, and mods; a legacy that has continued for most of the franchise.

But let’s focus on the original series.

For those that have never played this game it may be hard to understand it’s appeal; especially since, though marketed toward kids and teens, it has a heavy adult following. On outward appearances it may look boring (it’s original title after all was “Dollhouse”). It’s an “easy” game to play. Just point and click your Sim toward objects to fulfill “needs” and goals. But while it may not prove as challenging to play as say Gods of War, it still provides a fair challenge in terms of goals and objectives that the player can make for themselves (such as career goals). It’s also completely open ended, the player controls every move and decision made by the Sim (even including bladder needs). They can determine from the start what career the Sim will choose, whom to marry, how many kids to have, what to wear, as well as what the Sim itself will look like. They can also build or decorate their home and buy furniture. Of course the decision making aspect, as well as the customization abilities, have grown significantly as the series as grown. But at the dawn of the series the customization factors were still significant.

In the first game, the player was given a ten lot neighborhood in the suburbs, with half of it’s lots empty, and there were only three families living in the lot with a few more available to move in (or the player could just create their own). As the series expanded, Maxis became more creative with the landscape. A downtown area was provided for couples wishing to experience the nightlife, a New Orlean’s inspired “Old Town” was created for farmers and pet lovers (complete with Jazzy music), “Studio Town” was available in classic Hollywood style for aspiring musicians, models, and actors, and “Magic Town” was for, well, Magic making! There was also a fantastic resort island where the player could take their Sims to the beach, out camping, or skiing. As stated above, pets such as gerbils, parakeets, cats, dogs, and even dragons were available for your Sims to purchase in these locations.

The Sims themselves were a unique playable character for the time (and the player wasn’t limited to one, they could create/control up to eight Sims a lot). They could have babies (or adopt). They could become ghosts. They could become celebrities, spies, mad scientists, or lead a life of crime. They could perform feats of magic and even resurrect a deceased loved one (though sometimes with disastrous consequences). They could get married and have large families, or be the neighborhood Casanova. They could cause chaos throughout the neighborhood. The possibilities were virtually endless, limited only to the players’ own imagination.

There were many fabulous careers for Sims to explore including Circus (performer), Criminal, Fame (show business), Hacker, Fashion, Paranormal, and Musician. Advancing in those careers provided a decent challenge, much more challenging than in later games, due in large part to the amount of family friends that a Sim was required to maintain in a field. However, unlike later games, any Sim in the household could make a friendship of theirs count as a friend of the household (a trait that could be easily exploited). There were also rewards and perks that came with career advancement. A celebrity at a 4.5 fame rating would have a better chance at winning awards, receiving gifts, as well as able to work the better jobs, such as walking the runway or performing in their own music video.

In addition a Sim could have a butler, a maid, and if a celebrity, even their very own stalker. They could mingle with celebrity Sims like Marilyn Monroe or Christina Aguilera, model for Andy Warhol, dance in cages in a disco suit, or watch a magic show. There were mimes, carnies, Goths, mischievous gnomes, wish-granting genies, ghosts (yes, you could have your very own haunted house!), magicians, and Drew Carey Sims.

Just decorating your Sim’s ideal abode could be a great source of fun. You could create castles, build a charming cottage, or go crazy with cow print! Mods and other software was provided by both the fan community and Maxis themselves to provide the player with more options for decorating their world. A player could create their own wallpaper, floor tiles, outfits, paintings, etc; or download them via other more skilled players.

As stated previously, there was/is a heavy adult following for this particular franchise (more so than later versions). Why? Well it likely had to do with the adult themes, adult humor, and overall retro feel of the franchise (complete with the ’50’s style music that played during the neighborhood screen and tongue-and-cheek game advertisements). Or maybe it’s because Sim City had a similar appeal, and as the players of that franchise have grown, they naturally gravitated toward it’s spin off. Of course, there’s something to be said for living through a controllable game character that has more opportunities to live out the fantasies and dreams of people that would find it virtually unattainable otherwise. An average person could become an international spy, a superhero, or a world-renown actor. S/He could be abducted by aliens, own a pet dragon, or become a black widow. They could live in a fabulous mansion or loft, they could arrive to work in a limo. They could be a rock star or a famous chef. And if the player grew tired of their character(s) they could kill them in an elaborate death, or simply switch to another household. The level of control for the lives of their Sims and neighbors was massive.

As the franchise has grown (and switched owners) the original may feel a little flat to some. The Sims 2 and 3 series have really expanded on the ideas of Will Wright’s as well as created their own ideas, and have thus developed substantial followings. But I maintain that there is still a lot of charm left in the originals. Sure, The Sims 1 series is a much simpler style of game play and the customization isn’t near the level of The Sims 3 series, but many hours of fun can still be had with this series. It hasn’t really aged. The music is still great. I love the trance themes of The Sims Superstar, and this was before they added real life bands/singers to the soundtrack, so all of the scores are original and done by the wonderfully creative staff at Maxis. And there appears to be much more of a quirk/whimsy factor (two words: drunk gnomes). It was fun game series, and some elements never made a reappearance in the later sequels (for instance, the Fame mini-games were immensely enjoyable and are sorely missed in later expansions). For these reasons and many others, the original Sims 1 series is worth recognition and remembering. If you haven’t played it, I highly recommend checking it out because words don’t do it justice (particularly the Superstar and Makin’ Magic expansions). If you’re still fortunate to have this game series I’d recommend another play-through if for nothing else the nostalgia factor.

Seriously, stop with the fan base warring. It’s ridiculous. Both are brilliant directors who resurrected a twice-cheapened/failed franchise with clever writing, charm, wit, sex appeal, and an edgy exterior. They both presented us with engaging plots, memorable (in pleasing way) casting, and superb direction. It’s absurd to “fight” over which was the “best” for the franchise (neither was particularly keen on comic book canon, so don’t even go there). Burton started the ball making the franchise very “sexy” and “dark” again, taking it from the campy, deplorably written/poorly acted cheese fest that the Adam West tv series had burrowed into the minds of the American public. And then when Burton’s own brilliance was cast aside by production in favor of Schumacher’s on-screen abominations, Nolan appeared to once again give a soul back to the series. They both deserve great credit. Both have provided masterpieces of cinema and comic book lore.

BUT if I had to pick one director over the pack (because I know I would be asked to provide a preference), I would definitely choose Burton’s as my favorite Batman incarnation. Why? Mainly for the simple fact that I feel that Nolan’s real-world based reality makes a grown billionaire leaping about in a bat suit (complete with cape) look more than a tad ridiculous. Burton’s world was extra stylish, and was created during his “darkest” (and much beloved) phase of his career. He successfully combined fantasy and noir into the perfect sleek package. I loved how his “Gotham” could exist either in the 40’s or the 80’s flawlessly. I adored the Red Triangle circus (an extremely creepy bunch whom I wish I could have seen a whole film dedicated to). I loved Michael Keaton as Batman (with his slightly psychotic/maniac side). And Michelle Pffiefer is hands-down my favorite Catwoman (sorry Anne Hathaway and Eartha Kitt) Do I care if it’s canon? Nope, because it’s close enough for me in spirit and I’m not a Batman fan boy (and yes I have read many Batman comics, he was my favorite of the superhero bunch). And also, if Burton hadn’t gotten the ball rolling (and being so damn successful at it) I doubt Nolan’s versions would even exist (and we would have really missed out on Ledger’s top-notch performance as the sadistic Joker).

But again, I don’t waste my time on Youtube and forums flaming others that disagree. Because again, both were a wonderful series of films. I think my generation is so fortunate to have both Burton and Nolan at some point taking control of the franchise. So Burton and Nolan fan bases, give it a rest!

While nothing I’ve read indicates that Peter Jackson’s comedic horror classic, The Frighteners, inspired Team Silent in the making of the video game Silent Hill: The Room (aka Silent Hill 4), I couldn’t help but note multiple similarities between the two. And as I love finding ways to combine the things I love, I thought I’d post my observations (and what the hell, it’s my blog anyway).

For those that don’t know, Silent Hill 4: The Room was the last game created by the original Konami team that provided the classics of the franchise (Silent Hill1, 2, & 3). Silent Hill 4: The Room, though a decent game on it’s own, is certainly one of the less popular of the franchise as a whole (often tied with Homecoming). Nevertheless, for it’s time it was a bit refreshing for some fans because it offered a unique story-line for the characters (instead of the much done “repressed memories” schtick that would be a staple of the series) and provided a slightly different style of game play for the fans. Fan boys hate it, though they will pretend to appreciate it (which they didn’t do when it came out) since they refuse to admit that their “gods” at Team Silent could possible err in any way (not-shockingly similar behavior to Fallout fan boys). In any case it signaled the last of the “glory” days of the franchise (though the popularity of the series would pick back up with Shattered Memories and Downpour).

Just a quick glance on how the game fared with reviewers and the like (from Wikipedia):

The previews of Silent Hill 4: The Room provided at E3 2004 lead IGN to name it the best PlayStation 2 adventure game in show.[47] Upon its release in 2004 the game also attracted the attention of mainstream news outlets CNN, the BBC and The Times.[36][48][49] Rating aggregation site Metacritic shows an average rating of 76 out of 100 for both PS2 and Xbox console versions,[50][51]while the PC version shows an average rating of 67 out of 100.[52] Rating aggregation site Game Rankings shows an average rating of 76.13% for the PlayStation 2 version,[53] 73.16% for the Xbox version,[54] and 70.35% for the PC version.[55] Silent Hill 4 topped game sales charts in Japan during a video game sales slump, but dropped to tenth place one week later. Official statements by Konami referred to sales of the game in North America as “favorable.”

The PS2 and Xbox versions of the game received an “impressive” 8.0 rating from IGN reviewer Douglass C. Perry. Perry described it as “neither brilliant nor terrible,” and was displeased by the lack of boss fights and complicated puzzles. The article expressed the author’s mixed feelings toward the element of “the room,” and while Perry noted that the room “itself is a good idea,” he was displeased by the inconvenience of constantly having to return there. His closing comments also noted another problem: “While all the classic touches that have become so familiar and so great in the series have returned, they have simultaneously become cliché.”[11][56]

Kristan Reed, a reviewer for Eurogamer, expressed disappointment with the degree to which the game had been geared as a combat game with an absence of standard Silent Hill puzzles. He was nevertheless pleased with the game’s plot, graphics, and audio and gave the game a 7/10 rating for the PS2, and a 6/10 for the Xbox version.[1][57]GameSpot gave both the PS2 and Xbox ports 7.9 ratings, concluding with “While not all of the changes made necessarily serve to enhance the series, the dark, gripping storytelling is what allows this game its Silent Hill credentials.”[19][58]

The PC port of the game received lower ratings than the console versions. IGN reviewer Perry complained about “the blurriest textures we’ve seen in years and some serious graphical glitches” and “extremely low mouse sensitivity” inhibiting gameplay, giving it a comparatively low 6.9 rating.[59] GameSpot’s review of the PC version was slightly lower (7.6) than the console version, praising the graphics as having “been optimized well for the PC” but acknowledging “keyboard and mouse controls just don’t fare that well in an environment of constantly shifting perspective views that can make navigation frustrating.”[60]

It is notable that the game has gained more in popularity since then, similar to Jackson’s The Frighteners.

The Frighteners(1996), was both directed and partially written by Jackson, and though unsuccessful at it’s initial release, has since gone on to develop a sizable following. It’s appealing for it’s all star cast (including 70’s and 80’s scream queen Dee Wallace Stone, star of The Howling) and it’s fun combination of fantasy, horror, and comedy. It was a rushed film, but featured the combined writing talents of Fran Walsh (Jackson’s wife) as well as Jackson himself and the delightful music of Danny Elfman.

A quick overview of the fairly positive response (including it’s nominations at the Saturn Awards):

The Frighteners received generally positive reviews from film critics. As of December 2011, 69% of the 28 reviewers selected by review aggregator Rotten Tomatoes gave the film a positive review, certifying it “Fresh.”[24]

Kenneth Turan of the Los Angeles Times stated “Director Peter Jackson, at home with all kinds of excess in New Zealand, keeps everything spinning nicely, not even losing a step when the mood turns increasingly disturbing.”[25]Janet Maslin from The New York Times enjoyed The Frighteners, but “walked out the theater with mixed emotions,” she commented that “Peter Jackson deserves more enthusiasm for expert, imaginative effects than for his live actors anyhow. These lively touches would leave The Frighteners looking more like a more frantic Beetlejuice if Jackson’s film weren’t so wearyingly overcrowded. The Frighteners is not immune to overkill, even though most of its characters are already dead.”[26] Jeff Vice of Deseret Newspraised the acting in the film, with the performances of Fox and Alvarado in particular, but said that there were also “bits that push the taste barrier too far and which grind things to a screeching halt”, and that if “Jackson had used the restraint he showed in Heavenly Creatures, the movie could have “been the best of its kind”.[27] Critic Christopher Null praised the film, as he described it as a mixture between Ghostbusters and Twin Peaks.[28]Michael Drucker of IGN said that although the film wouldn’t make Jackson’s top five of movies, it “is a harmless and fun dark comedy that you’ll enjoy casually watching from time to time”.[29] The Frighteners received mixed reviews from critics from Jackson’s native country, New Zealand.[21]

Conversely, Todd McCarthy of Variety thought that the movie should have remained an episode of Tales from the Crypt.[30] Critic James Berardinellibelieved that although The Frighteners wasn’t “a bad film”, it was “a disappointment, following Jackson’s powerful, true-life matricide tale, Heavenly Creatures“, and because of that “The Frighteners fell short of expectations by being just one of many in the long line of 1996 summer movies.”[31]Chicago Sun-Times‘ Roger Ebert, felt that Jackson was more interested in prosthetic makeup designs, computer animation and special effects than writing a cohesive storyline.[32] Ebert and critic Gene Siskel gave it a “two thumbs down” rating on their TV show At the Movies with Gene Siskel and Roger Ebert.[33]Chicago Reader critic Jonathan Rosenbaum, described the film’s special effects as “ugly, aggressive” and “proliferating”, saying that “trying to keep interested in [the special effects] was like trying to remain interested in a loudmouth shouting in [his] ear”.[34] Edward Guthmann of theSan Francisco Chronicle stated that “instead of moving the horror genre in new directions, The Frighteners simply falls apart from its barrage of visual effects and the overmixed onslaught of Danny Elfman’s music score”.[35]The Austin Chronicle‘s Joey O’Brien, said that although the screenplay was “practically loaded with wild ideas, knowingly campy dialogue and offbeat characterizations”, it “switched gears” too fast and too frequently that “the audience is left struggling to catch up as [The Frighteners] twists and turns its way unmercifully towards a literally out-of-its-words finale”.[36]

Both feature serial killers. Walter Sullivan (Silent Hill 4) and Johnny Bartlett (The Frighteners), respectively. Both were young adults (twenty-somethings) when they began their spree and at the time of their death. Both were blonde, tall, anti-social, and broad shouldered.

Both feature ghosts that interact with the protagonist. In Silent Hill: The Room, the majority of the ghosts try to harm the protagonist (Henry) and his potential love interest (Eileen). In The Frighteners, Johnny also attacks the protagonist (Frank). Likewise, the killers in both attack the leading ladies (and potential love interests), with the intent of killing them at the end, during their attempted resurrection. And of course, both are sent back to the other plane by the hero. However, there are also benevolent/helpful ghosts in each, more-so in The Frightners then Silent Hill: The Room (Joseph Schrieber was a benevolent ghost that provided Henry with his “revelation”).

Both feature rituals being performed. The Ouiji board is used in The Frighteners by the ex-girlfriend of Johnny to communicate with him to bring him back and perform more killings, while the serial murders of Walter Sullivan were all part of his own elaborate ritual, which were to continue after his death (perpetrated by Walter himself, like Johnny).

Both feature “old” types of victims and “new” types of victims. By “old”, we mean the ones that were killed while the killer was among the living, whereas the “new” victim type comes from their ghostly killings.

But perhaps most importantly, all victims are marked with numbers on their bodies, with a goal to obtain a certain number. For the post-death murders, the number of and/or the victim themselves are revealed beforehand prior to the victims death to the protagonist (in Silent Hill 4, the victims are also given a special identity). Henry will visit the “new” victims in the Otherworld, while Frank would see the “invisible” carved number on the predetermined victims head.

See what I mean? When you think about it, the similarities are striking. I wonder if perhaps part of the creative team that created Silent Hill 4 viewed Jackson’s film and then subconciously mirrored some of it’s contents in their writing process. As Silent Hill 4 came many years after, I could see how that might happen. But who knows? It’s still a fun idea to ponder with repeated viewings/playings of either The Frighteners and/or Silent Hill 4, respectively. Also keep in mind that Team Silent (and later the American team) have cited films such as One Flew Over the Cuckoo’s Nest, Session 9, Carrie, Suspiria, and Jacob’s Ladder as inspirations for their franchise.